Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hi guys. As you probably know if you pay any attention to the forum, there has been a pretty intense bickering on the forum regarding issues of gender and how they relate to romantic and sexual relationships. Unfortunately, most if not all the threads where discussions like this occurred ended up in name-calling, semantic battles and other bullsh*t, producing very little substantial debate. IMO, this is really a shame, because these topics deserve an actual discussion. I am obviously not complaining from a holier than thou standpoint: I realize that I'm just as guilty of name-calling and hostility as others in these discussions. I won't apologize for my attitude toward some posters, but I'm willing to cut it if this can make the debate more constructive.

So, why wouldn't all of us give it a try? Let's banish words like "prude", "SJW", "misogynist", "sexist" and everything that we keep posting in all of these threads, and actually discuss issues and concepts. I'm an eternal optimist, I know, but I think this is really worth at least trying.

To start off (since we actually need to start somewhere) I'll go a bit personal and try to explain why gender issues matter particularly to me. You may have noticed that, while I'm basically your standard SJW on every issue, I tend to be more passionate (and irritable) on gender-related issues than, say, on racial ones. So, if I try to psychoanalyze myself, there are 3 main reasons I can think of, though they are closely intertwined:

- Firstly, because I consider myself, to some extent, a victim of patriarchy. I know how absurd (and even insulting) I sound saying this, so let me be clear. Obviously as a man I draw considerable benefits from patriarchy, and I am far from sharing the struggles that women face in their lives because of it. It would be ridiculous for me to compare my situation to theirs - kinda like a white Southerner in the antebellum era complaining about slavery because he thinks it makes him lazy. If I am a feminist, it's because I realize that my privilege is unfair and can't tolerate such an injustice. Still, I also see how patriarchal assumptions about masculinity are a problem for me. Society constantly tells me to be assertive, hide my emotions, be physically strong and display that strength in social interaction. Not conforming to these stereotypes can lead to suspicion among many social settings (obviously there are other reasons for this, but I do think it plays a significant part). This might have helped me understand that the idea of patriarchy does not describe a sinister male conspiracy to oppress women, but rather an overbearing social structure (internalized by men and women alike), which forces men into the roles of oppressors as much as it forces women into the roles of oppressed. If men were able to understand this instead of being trapped in an "us vs them" logic, I'm sure patriarchy would be dealt a fatal blow.

- Secondly, to be fully honest, I have developed a strong and partly irrational dislike for the social construct of masculinity. This has very little to do with feminism in itself, since socially constructed gender roles are not bad in themselves - they only become a problem when they are forced on individuals. Still, not only do I think that it is wrong to force individuals into gender roles, I also think the role men are forced into is a particularly awful one. I don't have much regard for socially constructed femininity either (remembering that gender roles test I took a while ago, I'm more "nonmasculine" than I am "feminine"). But while femininity just strikes me as shallow and a bit pathetic, I can't help but see masculinity as barbaric and often downright cruel. I'm really creeped out by this whole glorification, not only of physical force, but of violence itself (come on, you can't deny most social representations of masculinity rotate around this), allied with a good deal of arrogance and narcissism. While the whole point of questioning gender roles as a man is precisely to be aware that I don't have to follow this model, patriarchy is so pervasive (and, in this case, so closely related to basic animal instincts) that I will never be fully immune from it. I'll let you judge whether what I'm describing qualifies as self-hatred or not. Anyway, I obviously try not to judge people based on their gender, as that would be the exact opposite of feminism.

- Finally, there is the simple fact that I am a 20-year old guy suffering from the absence of any kind of romantic experience. I know I should be able to separate political debate from my personal issues, but having a basic understanding of feminism can only have an influence on my approach to these issues. It is very important for me to be sure that my behavior is consistent with my principles, but patriarchal instincts are so deeply ingrained in one's psyche that they are often difficult to spot. For example, I recently realized that I am dangerously close to the category of so-called "Nice Guys". Basically, I fit most Nice Guy traits except misogyny and manipulativeness. I do obviously despise the concept of "friendzone" and am proud of having many good female friends, but after my recent experiences I can tell that the pain expressed by some of this people is understandable. There certainly are many reasons why I am not as lovable as most people of my age, and most of them have nothing to do with patriarchy. I am, after all, a lazy, prickly, socially inept nerd. Yet (as an example of what I was talking about in the first bullet point) the fact that I am so much below the "proper" level of assertiveness that society demands to a man also plays a role. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I might subconsciously tend to put the emphasis on my feminist beliefs based on the naive idea that this is a way for me to "deserve" being loved (I mean in a general sense, not from someone in particular). And yes, I know this sort of mindset is actually a pretty [inks]ed up form of pseudo-chivalrous sexism. You just can't ask your subconscious to be rational...

So yeah, I ended up talking more about myself and my creepy obsessions than about actual gender issues. I'm sorry I found no better way to start this... Still, I hope the discussion soon moves to a more serious ideological debate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't really see what your point is.

The point was to move away from the continuous tsunami of vitriolic discussions on gender which achieve absolutely nothing except cementing each poster's hatred/contempt for other posters. Admittedly, this objective was poorly carried away, but it's well known I suck at starting threads.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I tend to think the forums, obsession (perhaps too strong a word) with feminism rests on the fact that we have virtually no non-trans women on this board. So ultimately discussions on such matters basically make this place an echo chamber.

Actually, the interesting thing is that gender-related polemics really emerged over the last year or so. I've been there since February 2009 and I have no memory of any major discussion emerging on this topic until recently (the exception I can think of is my feud with Gustaf over the DSK affair, when I was, retrospectively, on the wrong side of the argument - though it's a bit more complicated than that). I think this started to emerge with several instances of pretty gross misogyny (Sandra Fluke thread and all) which suddenly cast light on the forum's underlying issues with its underlying view of women. Before that point, this wasn't really an issue (precisely because there are so few women to actually point it out). I guess the arrival of posters particularly well-versed on these topics (Nathan, DRJ, etc) also helped raise awareness among similar-minded but less vocal posters. Overall, I would agree that the focus on this topic has become excessive in recent days, mainly because the discussion has become very passionate (again, I'm just as guilty as others). But despite this, I think the issue has never been discussed in depth... hence this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting perspective. I apologize if I have seemed to imply there was something inherently wrong with masculinity - really, the OP should not be taken at face value, it's mostly an attempt at exploring my own psychoses. I do have some personal qualms among no-strings sex, but I don't judge other people for this. Overall, I think feminism naturally goes hand in hand with the LGBT movement, since both challenge the preconceived notions of patriarchy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no problem believing this. I think it is actually a key point of feminist theory that abusive behavior is a consequence of power relationships between genders, not an aspect inherent to one's sexuality. In situations where power structures are different, I have no doubt women could display the same potential for it as men.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nathan, I understand your reticence toward the way modern society treats sexual and romantic relationships (I admit I've had a hard time following you through the entirety of your post, so pardon me if I misunderstand or leave out parts of your argument). Indeed I share your concerns with regard to the commodification, not only of sex, but indeed even of romantic sentiments themselves. This to me is more of a societal than a moral reflection though. People who engage in casual sex don't deserve to be shamed (unless such casual sex is adulterous, obtained through deception, or anything of this sort), in much the same way as "slutty" girls don't deserve to be shamed even though the hypersexualization of female bodies is a problem. Ultimately, this is an area where individuals should be free to make their choices without any societal pressure. The problem is that, nowadays, the societal pressure seems to be toward causal sex. And that's terrible.

Also, I have always wondered how you manage to reconcile your traditionalist outlook with such a full-fledged feminist and queer critique of traditional gender identity. Certainly there are a few points of convergence (at least with the sort of "prude" feminism which we both lean towards). But overall, feminism and LGBT activism strike me as the most glaring demonstration that humanity needs to move away from its dark past and break with abhorrent traditions. At least over the past 500 years, you can't deny that patriarchy has consistently seen its grip on society weaken. And it seems reasonable to hope that the next 500 years will see furthers blows on it and further acceptance of various forms of gender identity and sexual orientation. How to call this other than progress?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably at least in part, but not entirely. Even if it was entirely that, I don't subscribe to the notion that attitudes derived from fear or pain are at all times inferior to or less well-considered than attitudes derived from satisfaction or happiness. Fear and pain are some of the conditions of my existence. My beliefs cannot but comment upon that existence.

Indeed, I don't see why defense mechanisms are considered an inherently bad thing. Of course, some defense mechanisms taken to extreme levels can degenerate into full-fledged psychoses... but this is no different from more positive psychological mechanisms. And at a low levels, defense mechanisms precisely serve to preserve one's sanity. As I have explained, my insistence on promoting feminism is at least partly a defense mechanism against the patriarchal instincts I see in myself. I can only "forgive" myself if I prove to myself I can be an authentic feminist regardless of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I don't want to 'get laid'.[/quote]

Personally, I do want to, just not at any cost. This forum tends to forget that there might be more important things in life than "getting laid". Like, you know, being at peace with your conscience. Of course, Opebo doesn't have a conscience, so I see where he comes from.

Could you give me your working definition of patriarchy?  I'm getting the feeling that it goes beyond the traditional "man runs the family" stuff of old.

Patriarchy, in a nutshell, is the set of societal norms which govern the way individuals are supposed to act and behave based on their gender. It's basically a giant, systematic form of double standards. It operates primarily through stereotypes ("men are like this, women are like that"), which it assumes have a natural/biological origins. An individual's actions are then judged through the lens of these stereotypes, and if a man or a woman acts in a way that contradicts said stereotype, they are condemned by society. Patriarchy's assumptions touch a wide range of topics and sometimes are even contradictory (see the Madonna/Whore dichotomy), but they are largely invisible to those who don't want to see it (this is true of men and women alike - the only ones who can see it more easily than others are probably transgenders). Also, regarding your sig, He-Man is indeed as much a part of patriarchy as Barbie is, and feminists condemn imposed norms of masculinity and femininity alike.

Isn't there too much self reproach in the sentence "I am dangerously close to the 'Nice Guy' category"? It's not so bad being a "nice guy", if you're neither misogynist nor manipulative.

Maybe I am indeed too harsh with myself. I would be the first to be happy if this were the case. That said, the nice guy traits I have certainly include the tendency to act nice, not out of inherent kindness, but because this makes socialization easier. I am not sure if this counts as manipulation or not (is an act still an act if you keep it throughout your entire life? doesn't it become genuine at least to some degree?). At least, I never have, and never will, be nice to a girl simply to "get laid" and I am happy if I make a new friend regardless of their gender. Though of course it is possible to be in a situation where a love feeling is reciprocated only in terms of friendship, and I think it is normal to be upset about that. Also, I personally feel that I deserve to be loved in a general sense (or at least that I deserve it as much as other people who are loved do) and I am not sure if this qualifies as "male sense of entitlement" or merely human vanity. I might be overthinking all this, but over-analyzing myself has been my favorite pastime for a long time.

I know many women who are avowed feminists and they have broadly agreed that a strong, assertive man is desirable. It's perfectly possible to be both respectful and assertive, but if you go in being afraid that you will act in misogynistic ways then your love life is a dead duck.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that my unassertive personality has little to do with my feminist conviction. Feminism certainly makes me more cautious about what I should say, but overall that doesn't change much. It would be insulting to assertive men (which quite a few of my friends are) to equate assertiveness with misogyny - and it would also be a form of reverse sexism. I am unassertive, mainly, because that's what my personality is. That's who I am. And while there is nothing wrong with preferring assertive men, the fact that such an importance is given to assertiveness in men as opposed to other qualities, is part of patriarchy. If I were a woman, I'm pretty sure this would actually help me (not saying I'd be better off overall, considering that other aspects of me would be even more ill-regarded if I were a woman).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's why I think defense mechanisms like this are a bad thing:

If you don't have success with the ladies, it's probably a mixture of lack of trying, being unsuccessful in other areas, social awkwardness, being too fat or too skinny or being short or ugly.  So, the solution is to become more successful in your life, get some muscles, get a good job and just have an active social life. 

But, becoming a more attractive, successful grown-up person is scary.  So, instead, as a defense mechanism, you're externalizing your own personal issues into some big, complicated philosophical argument.  But, you can never come to a satisfying conclusion to this big thought puzzle about gender, or feminism or whatever you're talking about.  However, you can take some concrete steps to having successful romantic relationships.  So, this exercise of over-thinking and analyzing is just a waste of your time and a distraction from your life.

What exactly warranted this overly smug and condescending tone and the good number of baseless assumption you are making about me (especially in a thread where I've shown so much willingness to actually reveal important details of my private life)?

You raised valid points which I would have answered, but even by the broad standards of politeness I admittedly wish to uphold in this thread, I don't think you deserve an articulate answer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You don't exactly have to be an alpha male, but being more confident makes a big difference. If you are worried about what you say, then people will pick that up and react less positively overall. This is something that I have noticed in a broad variety of social interactions. Assertiveness is highly emphasized as an attribute, but in many ways it is an expression of confidence. I'm not naturally confident, and it's something that I've had to work on for a long time.

Believe me, I'm already working on my self-confidence, and I've made some major progress with it in the past 5 years or so. I know that there is nothing good about lacking self-confidence. That said, I don't think self-confidence and assertiveness are exactly the same thing. Self-confidence is a psychological state - assertiveness is a behavior. There are ways to project confidence without imposing its views on others or taking charge of every situation. I can understand why some level of assertiveness is a good thing, but excessive assertiveness is even worse in my view. I strive to have the level of assertiveness which I consider proper, but this level of assertiveness is still considered too low for a man by patriarchal standards.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know you.

That's weird, because reading your post it seemed like you had unlocked the secret about my existence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, I'm actually willing to question my own beliefs and examine the part of irrationality in them, in the hope that this will help all of us get back to theoretical discussion. Obviously we all have psychological failings that affect the way we examine issues. The goal was not to turn this into another "advice for self-confidence" thread, especially if the advice in question is offered in such a self-righteous manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was doing. Too bad you chose to ignore my own introspection and instead chose to draw your own conclusions on me based on nothing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apology accepted. If you actually read my previous posts, you will find bits where I speculate about what may be the roots of some of my subconscious takes on gender issues. You could contribute to this thread by giving your thoughts on them. Or sharing your own personal take on gender issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I apologize if what I said sounded sanctimonious, but I don't think it did. Apart from that, I would point out that this forum (or if not this forum, at least this board) is dedicated to expressing one's "theory about society". And that, like it or not, most people here are college or high school-aged kids.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I once took a girl out on a date and I asked her where she wanted to go. Her answer amounted to "you're the man; you decide". I'll admit, I really did not expect that sort of a response.

I have a hard time imagining that a relationship with a girl like that would ever work for me (at least not in the long run and if the comment was not at least partly humorous). Not because of personal dislike but because our characters would be incompatible on all respects. I am ready to great sacrifices in the name of love, but even if I wanted I am probably unable to change something so ingrained in my nature. Imagine a guy telling "I'm the man; I decide" to an assertive girlfriend. Would that have any chance to work?

Also, I think that a situation like this is unlikely to occur in the first place, because I have a hard time imagining myself falling in love with a woman who doesn't have a strong personality. I think this is among the few requisites I have in that regard (though of course I can never know for sure since love is unpredictable).

Ultimately, the importance of communication is key, but people are oftentimes ineffective at communicating themselves properly. If you are really serious about making it work with a particular woman, I'd suggest trying to assert yourself in different ways and gauging her reaction. Getting a feel for what she wants is key.

This is a very good advice, actually not only for romantic relationships as much as for any kind of social interaction. I think I have (timidly and to a limited extent) started to follow it recently, and I will certainly try to do this more often.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Apology accepted. If you actually read my previous posts, you will find bits where I speculate about what may be the roots of some of my subconscious takes on gender issues. You could contribute to this thread by giving your thoughts on them. Or sharing your own personal take on gender issues.

I'm gay so I don't really deal with these issues as acutely.  And, gender is too broad a topic for me to address with clarity.

But, generally, from liberal/left leaning people I think there's way too much hand-wringing about how misogynistic our society is.  On college campuses in America, there is a lot of vague talk about "rape culture" from the left and academics that is essentially nonsense in my opinion.  At least, that sort of lefty rhetoric is a distraction from the actual issues facing women like domestic violence, childcare benefits, reproductive rights, etc.

Please elaborate. Personally, I'm actually surprised every day to realize how rape culture is more ingrained in western societies than I ever could have imagined. Have you heard about the Steubenville case? Or about the assault threats in videogaming?

Being gay doesn't disqualify your opinions, obviously. Gender regards all of us in some way.


Also, as a general note, can we please avoid turning this into an "help Antonio get girls thread"? I know that's my fault for touching on the issue through such a personal lens, but this really wasn't my goal. I have no problem discussing this issue at length (in fact, now that it's started, let's pursue it) but I just wouldn't want the whole thread to revolve around this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio,
I feel the same as you in a lot of respects. At one point I was going to say that I'm a 30 year old version of yourself, but there are some critical differences.

You can't say this and then not elaborate.


Bedstuy, I'm not sure what point you are exactly trying to make. I don't think any feminist has even argued that a girl who has drank a bit but is nonetheless capable of giving full consent can sue for rape if she regrets it. However, isn't it obvious that drinking a significant amount of alcohol can impair a person's ability to make informed decisions? When this happens, it is up to the person who is sober to show some sense of responsibility and avoid taking advantage of the situation. This applies to men and women alike, but the main problem is that, patriarchy being what it is, men still aren't sufficiently educated to take consent seriously.


DC, I think Beet said everything that needed to be said. I just can't help but add that your notion that modern permissiveness has increased the prevalence of rape strikes me as absolutely mind-boggling. As vicious as it might be now, rape culture was infinitely worse in "traditional" societies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, Memphis and Opebo actually making good points. See that this thread was a good idea.

(I would have mentioned the issue of reporting, but I never would have expected DC to overlook it so grossly).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, Memphis and Opebo actually making good points. See that this thread was a good idea.

(I would have mentioned the issue of reporting, but I never would have expected DC to overlook it so grossly).

I thought of adding a paragraph about that but didn't. Wrong choice obviously.

Quick answer: I can't find any studies about changes in reporting rates. The only way to compare I can think of is comparing studies which sample different populations, have different methodologies etc, which makes for a terrible comparison. As of right now, Opebo's assertion rests on idle speculation.

Actually that's another annoying thing about this issue. Methodology makes a HUGE difference in a study's results.

Considering the lack of data, both mine and yours were mere assumptions which can't really be backed. Still, I see plenty of good reasons to believe rape was much more prevalent in the past than it is today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Deference endears one better than arrogance. People can get away with more audacious things when they are doing so in the name of giving up control. A woman saying "I'm the woman; I decide" would be met about as poorly as the gender-flipped version, though granted it would be far less likely for anyone to say that.

     The woman I was referring to is actually someone with a very strong personality. In my experience, there is actually very little connection between the strength of a woman and her interest in strong men. I don't understand women all that well; I just know what I do from my interactions with them.

In this case, her saying that was at the very least not entirely serious, and more of a playful remark than a real surrender of decisionmaking power. Maybe I'm wrong, I have a hard time imagining a woman with an affirmed personality accepting to let a man actually lead her throughout her life. I'm not saying that assertive women only like submissive men or vice versa (though I tend to buy into the "opposites attract" theory), but at the very least a basic level of deference should be necessary for a relationship like this to work.

Antonio,
I feel the same as you in a lot of respects. At one point I was going to say that I'm a 30 year old version of yourself, but there are some critical differences.

You can't say this and then not elaborate.

Well broadly, we both have, I think, a particular interest in gender and specifically feminist issues for much the same reasons. I too loathe the role of hegemonic masculinity that men are supposed to be in. One of the differences though, for me it's even more fundamental on account of my place on the asexual spectrum.

Forgive me if this is a too intimate question, but was your becoming an asexual a consequence of your reflections on gender, of your life experiences, or a mix of both (and if so, in what way)? I would hope that a cis-hetero-male can fully reject patriarchy and imposed norms of masculinity while still having a "normal" sex life (because, frankly, sex sounds like a pretty pleasant activity ).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually you're right, this is true for me as well. For example, when topics I'm well-versed in are discussed, I can be pretty assertive and even a bit of a jerk (I remember a discussion in class when I was trying to convince people that Hillary would not win back Arkansas and other States like that). Same when I am in family settings, mainly because I know they will love me unconditionally even if I'm not always nice. Also, as you guys have probably noticed, I don't really project underconfidence in my internet persona. This doesn't change the fact that in most social settings I am extremely awkward and shy (though much less than in the past) - obviously because I have Aspergers, but even if I overcame all the social impairments caused by it I would never be as assertive as the masculine stereotype.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true as well, though it also matters to me for personality-related reasons.

I'm preparing a post to talk on masculinity, which I also tend to despise. I don't think there's any other perscribed identity that permits so many people to fall through the cracks as "masculinity." I'll post more when I'm done my flow chart. I very much think the concept of masculinity contains two competing elements which have both worked in tandem to create a cold, violent, and polarized society. It's a shame. More to come.

(I guess the point of this post was to see how my feelings actually read when I put them into words. This topic is a very difficult one to grapple with.)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to feel this way. Looking forward to see what you have to say.

I also detest feminism in all its forms. (For what it's worth, I would probably detest masculinism equally, should I ever encounter its existence.)  I embrace egalitarianism--which definitely should not ever be confused with feminism, and I suggest that others consider it as well. Egalitarianism means equal rights and equal treatment under the law.  It does not recommend a pretense that men and women are the same.

While I wouldn't go as far as you did with the rest of your post, and while "detest" is a bit too strong of a word for me, I'll say that I roughly agree with this.

I would agree that the term feminism is probably not the most fitting one to describe what feminism actually is, but I've never seen the point of these little battles over semantics. Do you actually support the things feminism stands for? If so, you're a feminist. If not... eh, that's pretty awful.


Franknburger, there is a lot of truth with what you said and many of these characteristics indeed apply to me as well. I'm glad to see that you have moved away from sentimental isolation and I hope that I will eventually follow the same course. I have to emphasize though that I have many personality flaws that have nothing to do with gender roles, and that most of the blame for my situation should be attributed to myself rather than patriarchy. I can't really see a pattern in my unrequited love, since I have actually fallen in love one single time in my lifetime, recently enough for me not to be entirely over it yet (and in this case, there were a myriad of objective reasons why my love wouldn't be requited). My own maybe too high standards (not that it's something I have control over) coupled with my limited social life certainly explains the lack of more relationships too. Also, I would never resort the emotional blackmailing that you describe, because in my case, I would much rather have friendship than nothing. Still, your comments were very helpful and I'm happy to share the same feelings with someone else.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, I can't answer for Beet, but generally speaking one becomes asexual in the same way that one becomes gay or straight or bi or whatever else. You seem to be thinking of a sort of strongly internalized and disciplined celibacy, which isn't really the same thing. Forgive me if I'm misreading this.

All my apologies if what I said came across offensive. That was a honest mistake, as I admittedly am completely ignorant on the topic of asexuality.

In fairness, I generally feel that sexual orientation isn't as innate as many liberals claim it is (I don't buy into the "gay gene" thing for example). That doesn't change my view that society need to fully accept all these forms of sexuality, obviously.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyways, we can't ignore the purpose of humanity- reproducing. It's not wrong for men to want to "get laid", that's what we're biologically supposed to do. Same with women of course. Of course another obligation for humanity is to survive long enough for our offspring to also be able to reproduce, caring for them in the process.

That's not to say that if you can't reproduce, you're useless. You can still fulfill the second aspect of humanity. It's why all gay people (who can be fit parents) should adopt.

I think the purpose of humanity is to decide its own purpose, not to let biology dictate it.

Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with "wanting to get laid" (guess what, I too don't dislike the idea ). However, I deeply despise the deceptive and hypocritical means that are often used to reach that goal. Also, the societal pressure to "get laid" IS a major problem.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyways, we can't ignore the purpose of humanity- reproducing. It's not wrong for men to want to "get laid", that's what we're biologically supposed to do. Same with women of course. Of course another obligation for humanity is to survive long enough for our offspring to also be able to reproduce, caring for them in the process.

That's not to say that if you can't reproduce, you're useless. You can still fulfill the second aspect of humanity. It's why all gay people (who can be fit parents) should adopt.

I think the purpose of humanity is to decide its own purpose, not to let biology dictate it.

Sorry, that's the only purpose of any species. Sure, humans are sentient and all that, but we're still animals, and the purpose of animals is to reproduce.  Anything beyond that is necessary distraction.

Who cares about what the purpose of animal species is? The fact that we have free will allows us to completely ignore evolutionary principles and follow the course that we have decided. Of course we still need to eat, drink and all, and of course the drive toward sex that most people have is originally biological, as are a few other primal instincts, but that doesn't have to be out purpose if you don't want to. If history is any guide, what you call "necessary distractions" have in fact become much more important to our human experience.

[Antonio the Sixth]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

You know that wasn't my goal...

[Antonio the Sixth]

o look another thread about gender that turns into 'how to get laid' I'm sure that's exactly what this place needs

To be fair "you [plural or singular] need to get laid" could be posted in virtually every thread on the forum and would almost universally be appropriate and helpful advice.

Sure but going to this place for sex advice is...uh, yeah.

Now you're not being entirely fair... Yeah, a couple times the discussion was deviated from its original purpose, but most people have actually played by the rules and we've had several valuable (if a bit weird) theoretical discussions.

And FTR, your input on these issues (from whatever angle you choose to take) would be very much appreciated.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly, I don't have much to say about the idea that feminism is about raising women over men or that feminists don't care about any problems men have or w.e other than lol. The thing is, I've never encountered someone who actually believes these things irl. They're really just a vocal group on the internet, which makes sense because these kinds of chronically stupid misunderstandings can only happen from behind a computer screen. The bigger problem irl is general apathy, a sense that feminism is a past movement and why should we care nowadays, the so-called "post-feminism", which is very different from internet neckbeard anti-feminism.

As I've said previously, my view of my fellow forumites is a bit less negative than yours, and I think most of the people you cite have their heart in the right place, but just lack a proper understanding of the issue. I've been trying to explain the basics of gender studies, but my own  knowledge of them is very limited and you'd certainly do a much better job than me.

The fact that we have free will

I'm not entirely sure this is a fact.  We certainly have the sensation of free will, but that's something different.

Sure, free will at the fundamental level does not exist, since we are all a bunch of atoms reacting to physical laws and all. It doesn't change the fact that at our level of understanding, a human being is relatively free to make decisions through its own reflection rather than following animal instincts

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly, I don't have much to say about the idea that feminism is about raising women over men or that feminists don't care about any problems men have or w.e other than lol. The thing is, I've never encountered someone who actually believes these things irl. They're really just a vocal group on the internet, which makes sense because these kinds of chronically stupid misunderstandings can only happen from behind a computer screen. The bigger problem irl is general apathy, a sense that feminism is a past movement and why should we care nowadays, the so-called "post-feminism", which is very different from internet neckbeard anti-feminism.

This.

Personally, the fact that women are, in fact not equal anywhere in the world despite all of the efforts of the feminist movement is pretty obvious. Yes, there are issues- such as child custody, and education, life expectancy, and so on where women are favored over men, and these are important. And it's important that there are people who are working on them- but it makes sense that these people be men. After all, men are the most adversely affected by these issues, we are the ones who have the most stake and understanding there. So I understand why feminists, per se, don't work on these issues. And I think these exceptions are generally just that - they are still subordinate to the general kyriarchy of social relations, which men, (as defined by the kyriarchy itself - as are the whole concepts of masculine and feminine) are placed on a higher position than women. I would say it is less about men vs. women per se than analysis and social critique, in general. Which also extends to race, class, sexual orientation, disability, body and beauty standards, and so on. Actually, the older I get, the more firmly rooted I see that this hierarchy is in multiple ways.

When it comes to women my thoughts are that they have it so much better in the U.S. compared to the middle east that no one should complain. Men have it better here too so I'm not complaining either.

lol, cuz everyone in the US has it better than people in Somalia nobody in America should ever complain about anything amirite?

If any of us lived overseas or in a third world country we'd never complain again about things in the U.S. I've never met someone who lived elsewhere and wasn't thankful to be in our great nation. People just don't understand how good we have it. Instead they just want more.

No, what everybody in the West (but especially Americans) doesn't understand is how bad you have it compared to really advanced nations like the Scandinavians. TBF, America is probably better off gender-wise than some South European countries like Italy, but still that's not exactly a feat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Listen, Tony, just because we don't spend allday riding around in wooden ships and pillaging coastal towns in Northern Europe, doesn't mean we're not advanced.

Which of the words in the thread's title did you have problems to understand?

Are you suggesting I suffer from reading comprehension issues? For the record, my comment had bought to do with gender or some other awful topic, but rather with Antonio's claims that America is not advanced, which I go d rather impolite, hot-headed, and unsubstantial. That said, however, I don't feel particularly inclined to follow the rules of a thread made by someone that even wants a discussion on issues of gender and such.

Sorry if you feel my comment wasn't really appropriate. In all fairness, this comment was a response to an at least equally unsubstantial post by barfbag.

I don't think America is not advanced (it certainly is by global standards), but I think that it should strive to do better by looking at countries that actually do better, instead of constantly engaging in empty self-congratulation. The same is true for other countries, of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've got to say I'm surprised every day to see how awful France is. Actually the US seems to do quite well in this area, so credit where it's due.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My university is in the news after it was discovered that student leaders led new students in a "rape chant" during frosh week.

What was interesting with regards to this discussion is the varied responses blaming other cultures. The campus feminists are blaming patriarchy of course, while the resident priest and church groups blame the secular culture and the loose morals it produces.

It's certainly not surprising to see conservatives attempting to spin these events in their favor. I don't really see anything modern or "secular" about these kinds of attitudes, though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

drj, I have a question. I'm genuinely curious about and interested in your thoughts on this: Do you think that it's possible to hold--or, more importantly, do you think that it's possible to articulate--moral disapproval of sexual promiscuity in ways that don't have the perhaps inadvertent effects that you're describing on the way rape culture is perpetuated, or do you think that well is just too poisoned? (I agree with you that a lot of the time, perhaps most of the time, it does have those effects, by the way.)

I certainly can't answer your question as well as Drj would, but in my view the solution to this dilemma lies in the old "hate the sin, not the sinner" maxim. It is possible to articulate a social critique of promiscuity without holding a moral judgment on the people who engage in it. People who engage in the latter often drift toward the slut-shaming attitudes which nourish rape culture. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that promiscuity should be above any collective moral discussion.

Great link, PR.

[Antonio the Sixth]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people. leaving the argument at "well it doesn't affect you so don't push your views on other people" strikes me as a bit cowardly and not being willing to carry your arguments to their full, logical extent.

I absolutely agree with this. I can't stand these leftists who, by naivete or intellectual laziness, resort to arguments rooted in the same, shallow idea of freedom which libertarians are so fond of.

BTW, I should precise that my view on sexual promiscuity is not exactly the same as Nathan's, even though our divergences tend to be overshadowed considering the forum consensus on these issues. I do not view promiscuity in itself (even at a general level) as inherently morally wrong, if it is the result of a considerate decision and is fully understood as such by all the parts involved. What I have a major problem with, however, is the increasing social pressure toward promiscuity. I think this can be just as oppressive of individuals as the societal pressure against promiscuity was in traditional societies.